Every week, our panel of sports fans discusses a topic of the moment. For today's conversation, Hampton Stevens (writer, ESPN and The Atlantic), Jake Simpson (writer, The Atlantic), and Patrick Hruby (writer, ESPN and The Atlantic) talk about the highlights of the NCAA hoops season so far.

Hey, guys,

Football season is over. Spring training is yet to begin. The NHL playoffs are too far away to think about. What in the heck can a sports fan do? Wait weeks for the Daytona 500 on February 26? Watch the Premier League?

Child, please. It's hoops time. College hoops.

As we enter the conference season stretch run, making ready for the madness of March, it's time to start thinking about hardware for player of the year.

No shock, this Jayhawk fan likes Thomas Robinson. KU's massive post presence has a backstory as heartbreaking as his play is exciting. Averaging 18 points and 12 rebounds per game, Robinson looks like the obvious leader for the Naismith award.

Then again, I'm biased.

Okay. Fine. Make the case against him. Argue for Kentucky's young big man, Anthony Davis. He leads the top-ranked Wildcats in scoring, and plays ferocious defense. Or maybe you like super-soph Doug McDermott at Creighton, averaging 23.4 points per contest. Then again, maybe your theoretical POY vote goes to The Jared Sullinger, dropping 17.4 points and 9.1 rebounds per game for The Ohio State University. Who could blame you?

Me. Because it should be T-Rob. Jake, would you take a break from basking in your Giants' fabulous Super Bowl win for a second, and try to prove me wrong?

–Hampton

I can't argue with you, Hampton. I haven't watched a ton of college hoops this year because I've been sick with a GIANT FEVER, but I did see the Jayhawks paste a very good Baylor team, thanks in large part to a 27-14 from T-Rob. As much as I love Anthony Davis, his comically high 66 percent field goal percentage, and his unibrow (more on that from Patrick I hope), he has better teammates around him than Robinson does, which makes him the odd (big) man out.

But I propose we give the award to group of players this year (otherwise I have to rehash Hampton's fawning Jayhawk-love). Specifically, the Naismith should go to the sextet of Kentucky players averaging at least 9.7 points per game. That would be Davis, Michael-Kidd Gilchrist, Doron Lamb, Terrence Jones, Darius Miller, and Marquis Teague. On average, the group has played 168.4 out of a possible 200 minutes per game for the Wildcats this season, each averaging at least 25.5 minutes a contest. Though Davis has played the best of the group, Kidd-Gilchrist has shown an ability to completely take over a game for eight to 10 minutes at a time and dropped a season-high 24 points in UK's biggest win of the season, a 69-62 victory over then-No. 4 Louisville.

The other players have been nearly as impressive and the group has become almost unstoppable as a unit. That's all the more remarkable given that Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist and Teague are freshmen and Jones and Lamb are sophomores. Any UK doubters were silenced on Tuesday, when the 'Cats annihilated No. 7 Florida, 78-58, behind a 13-13 from Kidd-Gilchrist and a game-high 18 points from Lamb. Kentucky players other than the Super Six played a grand total of 15 minutes in the game.

Gonna take me to task for flagrantly overlooking the meaning of "Player of the Year", Patrick? Or do you think I'm on to something?

–Jake

Jake,

I'll get to your point about Kentucky. But first, a moment of silence.

Shhhh.

Okay. Better now. That was for the Pac-12, home of my beloved Arizona Wildcats, a downtrodden, MINO (major-in-name-only) conference that definitely won't be discussed in any player of the year debates. Sadly for me—and fortunately for Duke—Derrick Williams isn't walking through that door.

That said, the relative ineptitude of the Pac-12 touches on the essential nature of college basketball in 2012, which in turn leads to my preferred Wooden Award candidate. (I'll leave the Naismith to the East Coast snobs that once selected Danny Ferry over Sean Elliott). Follow along: Unlike college football and the rest of American society, college hoops is moving away from stratification and toward greater equality. The gap between the blueblood and big-conference haves—such as, ahem, Kansas and Kentucky—and the traditional have-nots seemingly shrinks every year.

Remember how shocking it was when George Mason made the Final Four? Or how unusual it seemed when Gonzaga's Adam Morrison battled Duke's J.J. Redick for player of the year honors? To borrow a writerly tic from George Will: well. Last season, BYU's Jimmer Fredette became the campus answer to the Beatles. VCU recently made the Final Four. Steph Curry nearly carried Davidson there. Butler has played in back-to-back title games. Heck, Harvard is a top 25 team this year—and also the alma mater of New York Knicks guard Jeremy Lin, who only happens to be breakout Internet folk hero of the truncated NBA season.

(Fun fact: Butler had as many former players on 2011-2012 NBA opening day rosters as Illinois).

In college hoops, there never has been a better time to be a member of the 99 percent. Which is why I'm going with Doug McDermott, Creighton's sharp-shooting sophomore small forward.

Granted, Kansas' Robinson has a backstory that's even better than his all-around production; yes, Kentucky's Super Six are probably the most talented collective of surefire future pros since Rick Pitino's mid-1990s Wildcats squads. (That said, Jake, I don't think they qualify as a Serpentor-esque player of the year amalgam any more than Kemba Walker should be listed at the 2011 national champion in the NCAA record book). McDermott has the requisite numbers: 23.3 points per game, 8.4 rebounds and a 50 percent three-point percentage—which, by the way, is better than Dwight Howard's free throw percentage. More than that, McDermott epitomizes the game's zeitgeist. He played next to coveted recruit and current North Carolina star Harrison Barnes in high school, yet didn't receive a single major scholarship offer. His own father, then-Iowa State coach Greg McDermott, offered him a walk-on spot.

And now? McDermott is flourishing, playing for his dad—who took the Creighton job in 2010—and putting up better numbers than Barnes. McDermott in 2012! Power to the people! #OccupyMarch.

About the Author

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A controversial treatment shows promise, especially for victims of trauma.

It’s straight out of a cartoon about hypnosis: A black-cloaked charlatan swings a pendulum in front of a patient, who dutifully watches and ping-pongs his eyes in turn. (This might be chased with the intonation, “You are getting sleeeeeepy...”)

Unlike most stereotypical images of mind alteration—“Psychiatric help, 5 cents” anyone?—this one is real. An obscure type of therapy known as EMDR, or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, is gaining ground as a potential treatment for people who have experienced severe forms of trauma.

Here’s the idea: The person is told to focus on the troubling image or negative thought while simultaneously moving his or her eyes back and forth. To prompt this, the therapist might move his fingers from side to side, or he might use a tapping or waving of a wand. The patient is told to let her mind go blank and notice whatever sensations might come to mind. These steps are repeated throughout the session.